The Supreme Court clarified that a party’s defence cannot be struck off lightly under Order XI Rule 21 of the CPC, 1908. The Court was dealing with a dispute arising from a decree for specific performance, where one side had resisted filing an affidavit of documents. Stressing the balance between fairness and punishment, the Bench observed that such a harsh step can be taken “only when wilful disobedience and intentional delay are writ large on the record".
The case arose out of an agreement to sell a property. When disputes followed, the plaintiff approached the trial court for specific performance. During proceedings, the defendant failed to file an affidavit of documents despite directions. The trial court responded by striking off the defence. The High Court upheld this view, pushing the matter to the Supreme Court.
Counsel for the appellant argued that the failure to file the affidavit was not deliberate but a procedural lapse, and such a drastic penalty would deny the appellant a fair trial. The respondent, however, pressed that repeated defaults reflected a clear disregard for judicial directions and left no option but to impose the strict measure provided under Rule 21.
The Supreme Court took a firm but balanced view. It noted that “the power to strike off defence is draconian in nature and must be exercised sparingly.” The Court emphasised that procedural lapses, unless shown to be deliberate or contumacious, cannot become the reason for denying a party their day in Court. Importantly, the Court underlined that Order XI was introduced to strengthen case management and efficiency, not to arm parties with technicalities to defeat justice.
The Bench went on to remark that striking off defence should not become the “first response” of courts and must only follow a clear pattern of wilful disobedience and repeated defiance of directions.
Setting aside the orders of the Trial Court and the High Court, the Supreme Court restored the defence, directing the matter to proceed on merits. The ruling serves as a reminder that while discipline in litigation is vital, it cannot come at the cost of fairness and natural justice.
Case Title: A.K. Jayaprakash (Dead) Through lrs vs. S.S. Mallikarjuna Rao and Another vs. State of U.P and Ors.
Case No.: Civil Appeal No. - 1118 Of 2025
Coram: Justice B. R. Gavai, Justice Augustine George Masih
Picture Source :
